OTC meds as performance enhancers?

Former Member
Former Member
Hello, I am a freelance writer as well as a swimmer. I am doing a piece on recreational athletes' misuse of over the counter medicines / products (sudafed, benadryl, Red Bull, advil, etc) and off label use of prescription drugs (inhalers, ritalin, etc) for performance enhancing purposes. The article will explore the prevalence of this behavior and the health consequences, if any. Being an athlete who has taken the occasional sudafed before a race, I'm not looking to flay anyone, The question is not whether that makes you/me a drug cheat, but whether in our desire for PRs or records, we are willing to go down a similar path as steroid and EPO users, just not as far. I would not use anyone's name in the article. If you would prefer to e-mail me privately, my e-mail is laurarob2@comcast.net. I am also interested in anecdotal evidence and your opinions on whether or not such behavior is widespread and/or okay. Thanks.
Parents
  • Former Member
    Former Member
    It seems to me that the basic underlying principle is based on a trade-off between health and performance - the purpose of the rules is to allow people to be competitive without having to compromise their health. The problems crop up when the potential negative health effects are not that clear, or when small doses don't have a significant negative effect but larger doses do, and you have no way to determine whether the athlete is, for example, taking a cold medicine a couple times a year when they have a cold or all the time for the stimulants. Clearly eating regular food does not compromise your health so it isn't problematic. At the top levels one could argue that in some cases we've got to the point where the training itself has gone beyond the health promoting level, but that's a whole other can of worms that largely went down with the idea of the amateur athlete (which has been resurrected in the recent discussion of the "real masters swimmer" discussion).
Reply
  • Former Member
    Former Member
    It seems to me that the basic underlying principle is based on a trade-off between health and performance - the purpose of the rules is to allow people to be competitive without having to compromise their health. The problems crop up when the potential negative health effects are not that clear, or when small doses don't have a significant negative effect but larger doses do, and you have no way to determine whether the athlete is, for example, taking a cold medicine a couple times a year when they have a cold or all the time for the stimulants. Clearly eating regular food does not compromise your health so it isn't problematic. At the top levels one could argue that in some cases we've got to the point where the training itself has gone beyond the health promoting level, but that's a whole other can of worms that largely went down with the idea of the amateur athlete (which has been resurrected in the recent discussion of the "real masters swimmer" discussion).
Children
No Data